Discussion on Whether 150+ Athletes Names and Blood Values Should or Should Not be Revealed

Reveal the names. This needs to be an example to dopers that even a scent of suspicion will get your name out in the public. You can't hide behind innocent until proven B sample.

The names of the athletes along with those of their coaches and managers (if known) should have been released immediately to the public.

The athletes and their lawyers should then be allowed to present their cock-and-bull story as to why their blood test results were so off the charts to a panel of independent physiology and medical experts. If their explanations do not add up for the experts this is enough for them to be convicted of doping.

A ban of the worst offending nations such as Kenya and Russia for a period of a few years must be considered by the IAAF if they are serious about eliminating doping from track and field.

If 'abnormal' means in it's most scientific and objective sense, positive, then absolutely they should be revealed. But if there's reasonable doubt that an 'abnormal' finding could be of someone innocent, well I can not think of a greater tragedy for that person to be tarnished like that.

Reveal them. AND reveal the way the B samples were handled and tested so we'll know if any of these athletes are possibly being let slide like Bernard Lagat and many, many others over the years, simply because they are from countries or groups that are "protected" for certain reasons.

turkey leg wrote:

If 'abnormal' means in it's most scientific and objective sense, positive, then absolutely they should be revealed. But if there's reasonable doubt that an 'abnormal' finding could be of someone innocent, well I can not think of a greater tragedy for that person to be tarnished like that.

Really? You can't?

I've been thinking about this today. While I strongly believe the names should be revealed, I also must admit that I have some information that could damn a few runners from back in the day. I've chosen not to reveal it because, I've never felt entirely certain it was true - some of it is based on (some well-informed..) hearsay. Some of it is based on drunken admission, and some of it is based on some pretty damning evidence (syringes...). In each case, there is an argument to be made against publicly accusing the person: hearsay isn't evidence, drunken admissions are, well, given while drunk, and lots of stuff could have been in those syringes, but....

In this case, though, it seems the case is much stronger. Some WADA scientist is being quoted as saying that there was no way that the blood sample could have come from anyone other than a drug cheat.

The fact that several IAAF officials are resigning over this -including the president's son! - is also pretty damning. Now it may be that not all of the 150 or 225 or whatever the number is are actually guilty, but there's always that risk any time crimes are prosecuted. It is tragic, but we still prosecute. As we should here, I think.

I think the names are coming out eventually anyway. This is too big for them not to.

I think the point is that "abnormal" for one test does not mean anything. One blood test in terms of the passport I don't think can convict an athlete of doping. That is my understanding and what Nick's letter is saying.

When abnormal means in the "scientific and objective sense, positive" the athlete gets suspended with a biological passport positive.

However, if the burden of proof to convict an athlete is 99.99% with the biological passport and a few abnormal readings mean you are 95% likely to be doping that's a different matter right?

I think the leaker is not arguing that these athletes were 100% positive, but that they were likely positive and not followed up with.

I think the point like I said above is that the blood test on their own isn't enough to convict someone of doping. However, if it is really just more of a technicality then most people aren't going to care.

The "list" of 150 names should not be revealed because the public will completely misconstrue it as a doping list. This is no different from a list of people the IRS decides to audit because something looks abnormal at FIRST GLANCE. The idea is you don't have enough resources to test everyone all the time, so you try to pick the ones who are more likely than others.

The only way this should be public is if they make ALL drug test results public - just raw numbers. Then smart people can analyze them and try to convince us who's suspicious and who's not.

Instead, we've got somebody analyzing them behind the scenes with a secret formula and giving us a list. How is that transparent? It's not.

My understanding is that these samples were suspicious for the same reason that samples were considered suspicious before BP: and people were banned on the basis of a single test all the time (well, A and B....). Perhaps my understanding is flawed, but this argument that a single blood sample tells us nothing is, quite simply, ridiculous. And, as I said in my post above, an expert has already weighed in.

I also think that the sport - at least at the professional level - is in its death throes. PEDs are a large part of the reason why. The world of T&F before Ben Johnson was markedly different than after. The last 25 years haven't helped. Ask the casual fan about T&F and drugs is one of the first things they'll mention. The sport has an urgent need to clean house. On one hand revealing 225 athletes doped in just a few years will be pretty damning. On the other hand, maybe it will be a sufficient disincentive for guys who are considering cheating in the future - and, in any case, it's the right thing to do.

In all such testing there is grey area between "normal" and "abnormal" and the protocol tends to favor protection of the innocent at the risk of exposing some who are probably guilty. I don't have enough insight into the details in this case to determine that this list isn't those tests that fall into the suspicious, but not beyond reasonable doubt category. If that's what it is, releasing the list would probably unfairly damage some reputations. It would also clearly violate WADA protocol as I understand it, which is not a small thing.

That and I'm not a big fan of trial by mob.

I wish we could all see the names, and I think most of these guys probably are dirty.

But I think that they absolutely SHOULD NOT be released. The reason is we don't want to tarnish the names of people who might be innocent. This is their livelihood -- they have sponsorships and deals to worry about and reputation is important. Even though everyone knows that this isn't conclusive evidence, pointing the finger will still have an impact.

We don't release the names of positive A samples (well, we try not to) before B samples are tested for the same reason. And in the cases that they were released and the B sample tested negative, the athlete's reputation still suffered enormous repercussions. We shouldn't point fingers unless we're sure.

I do think we should follow up on the evidence the Russians/Germans have submitted. And further testing of the athletes with suspicious values should occur. But that's a procedural issue.

Link wrote:

My understanding is that these samples were suspicious for the same reason that samples were considered suspicious before BP:

Don't know where you got that idea... this is a list who are suspicious enough for further testing but are probably within "before BP" thresholds

wejo wrote:

I think the point like I said above is that the blood test on their own isn't enough to convict someone of doping. However, if it is really just more of a technicality then most people aren't going to care.

The problem is that the IAAF have been apathetic about trying to catch cheats in their sport and they have not been following up athletes with abnormal blood tests as they should be doing with targeted testing. As these blood samples are from some time ago this is now no longer possible and the damage has been done. A way of repairing some of this damage is to release the names and to then ask the athletes and their coaches and managers to explain the abnormal blood readings.

Privacy laws. Lawyers will have a slam dunk with this.

I am all for transparency and if the athlete signed a release then I say go for it. I want a clean sport but you can't just go and publicly release medical information. Suspicious is technically not positive right?

I don't think it is right to tarnish someone's name unless there is near conclusive proof. I think one of the values that was reported was a hct of 39. That is high but I once had my hct tested after doing a long run (and presumably quite dehydrated). It was 39 as well and I certainly wasn't taking any PEDs. These tests are meant to raise suspicion but they're not designed to be used in isolation. It would be unethical to do so.

HardLoper wrote:

The "list" of 150 names should not be revealed because the public will completely misconstrue it as a doping list.

If you look at the nationalities of the athletes on the list (of the ~250 athletes published in the Telegraph newspaper) there is a good correlation with nations that turned out large numbers of endurance athletes who have tested positive for PEDs over the last 10 years: Russia, Kenya, Spain, and Morocco all feature in high frequencies. Ethiopia also featured highly but there has never really been any effective anti doping control set up in Ethiopia. The list therefore seems to be a very good pointer of doping and the athletes should absolutely be named along with the names of their coaches and their managers. If certain managers and coaches feature highly then it may also indicate that they are involved and they should be at least be questioned intensively to explain how they are involved with large numbers of athletes who show signs of doping. This may sound tough but at the moment, a rational person cannot watch a global track and field championship or marathon major without suspecting the winner of doping. This is a sad state of affairs and has to change if the sport is to survive as a mainstream sport.

I agree with you in that it should be mandatory that all blood tests and drug tests (A and B samples) are systematically made public.

We should start from scratch. All rational people know that every NOPer is filthy and needs a lifetime ban. Paula and mo need lifetime bans. Every brit, jamaican, American and french sprinter is filthy and need lifetime bans. Every russian and kenyan is filthy. rupp, lance, centro, paula, sleazy, cheserek and mo need to be in prison. The entire sport has been ruined by these punkassbitches.

Tribe wrote:

I think one of the values that was reported was a hct of 39. That is high but I once had my hct tested after doing a long run (and presumably quite dehydrated). It was 39 as well and I certainly wasn't taking any PEDs. These tests are meant to raise suspicion but they're not designed to be used in isolation. It would be unethical to do so.

A high hct on its own will not be suspicious (and 39 is not high). The investigators will have looked at a whole range of blood parameters before deciding that the results are suspicious.

Take the suspicious blood values and retest them. If it raises a red flag on today's bio passport program then release the name. And obviously of course if the new tests are able to find a drug that wasn't testable during that time. The people who were just suspicious therefore won't be released. I know the passport program is over time. But if it's an undeniable red flag then release the name.

Uber alles wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

The "list" of 150 names should not be revealed because the public will completely misconstrue it as a doping list.

If you look at the nationalities of the athletes on the list (of the ~250 athletes published in the Telegraph newspaper) there is a good correlation with nations that turned out large numbers of endurance athletes who have tested positive for PEDs over the last 10 years: Russia, Kenya, Spain, and Morocco all feature in high frequencies. Ethiopia also featured highly but there has never really been any effective anti doping control set up in Ethiopia. The list therefore seems to be a very good pointer of doping and the athletes should absolutely be named along with the names of their coaches and their managers.

But what do those numbers mean without knowing how many total athletes were in the sample? They reported 4 from the US - is that 4 out of 4 or 4 out of 100?